Very Cool Favorite Things

Check These Out!

Watch Me Crash at Blogshares!

Whatchamadoohies

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

HomeSpun Blogger Symposium Question - XXXII

And the question IS:

How do you feel about Hurricane Katrina?

It's an interesting question and my emotions - the way I feel - run the gamut.

First - I was anxious. Watching it approach. As it got closer and stronger it became apparent to me that this was the big one. The one we've been dreading for years. New Orleans taking the full hit. Yikes.

When it hit I was horrified by the size and the strength of it. Just look at that satellite pic - it's three states wide! I became worried. The people - did they get out?! Watching the superdome as the roof was partially ripped off. Hearing the reports of no power and water leaking through the damaged ceiling. Thousands of people. Not one of them a match for the fury of a category 4 hurricane. The winds over 100 mph.

After it passed - miles and miles of destruction. New Orleans on every day..24 hours a day. What about MS? What about AL? My God! Entire cities leveled. The oil platform crashed into the overpass. The gaming boats swept inland and deposited on rooftops. We have to help. I became agitated and couldn't stand that helpless feeling. We will wait until payday and buy some items. Frantically searching the internet for information, what, who, how to send supplies.

Then the anger came. Hearing the whining of Nagin and that stupid governor. Blame, blame, blame. More anger as the world criticized the federal government in their ignorance of how the United States of America works. Not just the Europeans though! Oh no! Our own home grown whacks not understanding a thing about responsibility, self protection, the strong helping the weak - your neighbors for God sake. Only the hand out. Only the complaint that someone couldn't wait on them fast enough. The looters and rapers and then the people who screamed justification for the behaviour of the looters and the rapers.

The amusement at the speculation of WHY the hurricane hit. It's a sinful city they said. Bull. It's hurricane season. Hurricanes hit us every year about this time.

The local leadership that the populace elected in La. failed - utterly and miserably. That same leadership tried playing the race card rather than face it's own shortcomings. Rather than have it's own incompetence and outright obstruction brought to the light of day - the leadership played the race card. The leadership abandoned the people who elected them - let them suffer and die and then tried to blame someone else.

Did you see that man who hung onto his wife as their house split in two? He was crying. She was swept away and called 'Take care of the children' as she went. That was sad. So I was sad, too. The little 6 year old boy with 7 babies that he'd kept together and taken care of for 2 days. The youngest 5 months old. Most of them 2 or 3 years old. Sad, but God blessed those children and he's a good boy and they're safe now thank God.

I am proud of Ms. and Al. The citizens and the leadership there did not fail each other. Horrible suffering and terrible conditions to be endured in those states did not result in rape, murder, looting and playing the blame game.

Let us allow the example of Ms. and Al. to be the example of the greatness of the American spirit. It's all about taking responsibility. While the mayor and governor in the New Orleans, La part of the disaster were dishonoring themselves, the people of Ms. and Al. were cleaning up with the help of their leadership.

My girls have seen the destruction and the best of it and the worst of it. I will highlight the best of it for them. Donating money to the Salvation Army and giving clothes to the pickup point. Buying items for shelters in the affected states and mailing them. Discussing ways that we can prepare for an emergency. Having them help get a survival kit together. That is the American way - to be strong and help. I let them know that we are responsible for our own safety and for the safety of the weakest in our community.

Finally, I am proud of my country and I am proud of my neighbors - every last one of us has done something to help and those of us who believe have prayed for ALL of the people who have suffered so terribly and we pray for the people who are helping them.

93 Comments:

And, since I'm banned from over there, I'd just thought I'd let you know that I'm Dan - I used Gus because he had banned me and I wanted to offer one last explanation/defense.

I'm Dan Trabue, live in Louisville, KY have a wife of 20 years and two great kids. I'm a deacon at my church and involved in my community.

I tell you all this because it seems many on the right side of the blogosphere are a bit worried about/angry at those who disagree with them. I just wanted to let you know I'm another concerned citizen who prayed for the citizens of the Gulf Coast as Katrina hit and caused her devastation, who has sent money to aid in relief.

I'm not a monster, a terrorist or a traitor. But I AM way left of y'all, or at least you would probably say that I am.

Nonetheless, we're all in this together and we really need to work on building some common ground.

Monica, I like the homespun blogger topic ... but am not ready to write about it yet ... still too mindnumbing ... and the stench of the Democrat instigated "blame" game is also tough to get my mind around.

There are alot of issues here, tho. First, and foremost, the tragedy. Second, the absolute failure of the mayor and the state governor to do a d*mn thing until the feds got there ...

Third -- it's been an extremely obvious attempt by the MSM to not report the news, but shamelessly MAKE the news.

Thanks for reading and commenting Fraubudgie and Tshsmom. It was a terrible lot to sift through and put to words.

Now for Dan. Dan - from reading the comments that you have pointed to, I see that you have decided that we should all ride bicycles, work close to home and limit our personal sphere to a very local, small area. I applaud your decision to fashion your life in this way. It is not your right, duty or job to fashion my life using your ideals. This is America. You do not have the right to tell me that I can go no farther than x amount of miles from my home. To say that if I do I am then infringing upon your rights is not a valid argument.

Mike tried to tell you this same thing. You then threw the asthmatics at him and accused him of infringing on your right to clean air simply because he drives an automobile that you do not approve of and drives more miles than you think is prudent. That is not an AMERICAN way of thinking. This is AMERICA. Not the old Soviet Union. We are in AMERICA.

I also see that you accused him of threatening your life and have hinted at the possibility of counter-threatening him with legal action for the perceived threat. He banned you, apparently, because at that point the debate was not a debate anymore.

Please understand that the choices you make in your life are made BECAUSE you live in AMERICA and have the freedom to do so. You do not have the right to force the choices that you make on anyone else in AMERICA.

You seem like a very nice person (aside from the threats to go after Mike for a perceived threat on your life...which I could not seriously read into what he said to you) but I believe you are deluded and I'm sorry for that. What on this earth has got you thinking that you can force people to live the way that you live?

Thank you Sister Alice for rising to my defense, sort of. I'm here, I'm who I say I am and I'm just trying to raise the level of conversation between "us" and "you." Don't hate me for that.

As to your comment about the air quality discussion on the other page, Ms. Grizzly, what I was trying to point out was that it is not simply a matter of me trying to take away anyone's rights. I'm saying that rights are already being taken away.

If we change laws to encourage less driving, you might look at that as taking away rights, BUT currently some people are having their rights taken away, as well. Asthmatics, for instance. People who prefer their air clean, for instance. With me so far?

Let's take this one step at a time (if you're interested in this particular discussion, if not, so be it): Do we agree that we're not talking about one group wanting to take away another group's "rights" but that we're talking about a conflict of rights?

As far as Mike's comments are concerned, I'll leave you to judge them for what they're worth.

Again, I'm being polite, I'm asking sincere questions with a desire to increase understanding, and Mike not only bans me for that, he follows me around and besmirches my good name with baseless accusations and slanderous remarks.

Mike and I disagreed and he found that grounds to call me a liar a fool a baby killer and a genocide lover.

That is NOT an application of logic. When you study logic, you find that that sort of argument is called an ad homenim attack. He didn't like my arguments so he leveled a bunch of patently false accusations.

I hate to belabor this point, but this is what I'm getting at. There are too many people yelling and not enough discussion. Maybe calling me a genocide lover makes my opponent feel better about themselves, but it has nothing to do with reality and is, therefore, not especially helpful and is certainly not based upon logic.

I feel like I'm saying, "Mary had a little lamb" and you all are responding, "Yeah, you'd like to kill a bunch of sheep and rape Mary, too, wouldn't you..." Which is not a logical response to my comment.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Why this huge communication gap? And does it concern you at all?

oh boy , I have seen dan around but didnt think he was so pushy , anyway noone can go around and tell folks how to live , especially here in the USA , oh unless of course your doing something illegal . Heh !

I keep hearing this liberal = emotion and conservative = rational and find it hard to believe. I've based my comments on logic. You may disagree or try to find an error with my logic, but I'm NOT saying that "awww, I feel bad about this therefore we ought to change." Never have.

Case in point, our discussion about transportation issues. Monicar said, "What makes you think you can force people to live the way I want them to live?"

And my response is, we're already doing that. Asthmatics and folk who want clean air ARE being forced to accept dirty air. Do you understand that we've already made decisions that have taken away some people's choices?

Please answer that question because it is fundamental to understanding one another.

It's not that we don't have policy on the topic. We currently have policy that encourages driving. I'm suggesting it would be wiser to change that policy.

Again, it's not a NEW policy, it's a change in the current policy. With me?

And Skye, Mike NEEDED to stoop to using bad logic, is that what you're saying? If you think the quotes I gave are out of context, feel free to visit the website.

I was always polite (with the exception of one curse word after he repeatedly denigrated me, for which I apologized), and merely trying to engage in a logical discussion. It's all there if you want to check it out.

I think what you are saying Dan is that you wish that the federal government would implement policies that discourage driving.

What are you proposing?

Federal money for development of renewable resources? Higher tax on vehicles that pollute? Penalties for traveling more than x amount of miles per year?

I have a huge problem with the government getting even more involved than it already is. In fact I want the federal government to do LESS than it is in most every facet of it's activity. If you are proposing actions similar to the type that I mentioned above - where does it stop?

Tax credits for people who eat yogurt because the government has decided that's what it wants you to do? What else? Is there anything else that you, Dan, want the rest of us to do that you would be comfortable giving the government more power to push us in the direction that YOU want us to go?

Please tell me flat out if that's where your head is. If it is there, then I think that you ought to move to a country with a populace that is comfortable with their government running their lives.

I will also state that the personal choice you have made in your lifestyle is commendable. You have made that choice because you live in America and have the freedom to do so.

Do not for ONE MINUTE think that I would ever choose the same lifestyle. I have no problem with you advocating for that type of lifestyle. I have a HUGE problem with you thinking that the federal government should force me to live as you do.

You still haven't answered if you understand what I'm saying when I tell you that lifestyle choices are ALREADY being imposed.

My right to clean air and clean water are not there, Asthmatics are bound to their homes on some days because of our current policies. Do you understand that your choices are currently being imposed upon others?

It's a vital point to clarify.

As you say - and I agree -"I have a HUGE problem with you thinking that the federal government should force me to live as you do."

What is Dan's thing with asthmatics?What does he suggest we do to give them clean air? Should we ban all smoking anywhere in the United States? Now I'm all for that. I hate smoke and it chokes me up. But, I'm not going to tell you not to smoke. I just go to places that don't allow it.I guess we can ban all the cars from the highway and forbid the cows to pass gas and the horses too. In fact maybe we should kill all the horses and cows. People make their own choices. Oh I know asthma is not a choice. My grandson suffers from asthma. I'm just saying we live in a world of commerce and unless you want to revert back to no electricity or eleminate all the other comforts we have become acustom to then you will have to deal with what comes with it. I guess I'm saying there is no real answer for dan.

Of course when you invoke the name Michael, the Archangel, his namesakes pay heed. So I was a bit concerned when I read the following comment by our friend Dan:

"We must always remember that Hitler and bin Laden also were/are fighting evil"

Here's the comment thread:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bo0kmark/112524188569351375/

Dan not only plays the moral equivalence card, but goes on to say:

"we choose immoral means to fight. Which, as I think you know, I think we have. As does the Pope, apparently"

and this nugget of wisdom:

"we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."..."I don't think violence is a good or wise answer. Most modern wars tend to not fit the Just War Theory "

About that time I weighed in. And as some of you know, I don't tolerate fools gladly. We won World War II at a cost of nearly 69 million lives and after dropping two atomic bombs. That horror was necessitated because the "peace at any price" crowd, who are the progenitors of today's peacenik bunch blocked the simple action that would have prevented that war and saved the world from the nightmare of Nazism.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious where Dan is coming from and it's not an attitude which has any moral or intellectual credibility.

Hence, my ban at Mike's America.

P.S. I recommend Haloscan free commenting system for those looking to preserve their free speech rights in the face of the socialist tactic currently in vogue: blog flooding.

I apologize for taking up the Katrina blog for other business. If you don't want to talk on this topic, feel free to stop and so shall I.

I started here at this Katrina comment because Grizzly Mama addressed me elsewhere and I was just trying to deal with her comments, which sort of devolved in to this off subject topic of clean air issues.

I know it can be irritating when comments get off topic, so just give me the word and I'll quit.

But, as long as you're saying that I've not offered answers, I'll do so again (I believe I have offered answers, but apparently not clearly enough. I apologize.)

I'm saying:1. That we currently have a conflict of rights between those who'd like to drive/pollute as much as they want and those who'd like our air and water to be as clean as possible.

2. I'm suggesting that we ought to resolve this conflict by changing our current policies which encourage the personal auto and pollution and which subsidizes the auto industry and motorists.

3. I'd suggest changing the policy so that A. we no longer subsidize the auto industry and motorists (end auto welfare). This will result inB. higher gas and car prices, which will result inC. fewer people choosing to drive, more people reducing their circle of travel, more people finding alternative transportation.

These ARE answers. They are policy changes that would not take away anyone's "rights" to drive, that will encourage personal responsibility, that will result in increased industry (other forms of transit), that will result in a healthier place to live.

These are not only answers, they're CONSERVATIVE answers! Not bad for a wacky liberal guy.

If you have a problem with my logic, please, let's engage in that conversation. But don't ignore that I've just offered one example of some possible answers to an existing problem of conflicting rights.

Now, see, Mike's response is an example of red herring error in logic, in which the respondent accuses the commenter of things he didn't say (ie, I said nothing about shutting down the economy, or rolling back modern society).

If someone would like to suggest that changing from one dominant mode of transport to others would harm the economy, then point out how exactly.

I'll try it for you:

If we encourage people to drive less, that will hurt the auto industry and therefore jobs would be lost, hurting the economy.

That would be an appropriate and meaningful response.

I would respond appropriately back to this:

We might drive fewer gas-powered autos and fewer gas hogs, but those would be replaced by electric cars (they exist already), trains, buses, bikes, higher gas mileage autos. So industry will still be there. Jobs will still be there - maybe even an increase.

And it is a conservative (and progressive) notion to be personally responsible. I don't go to a picnic and leave trash behind, that would be personally irresponsible.

I will likewise try not to leave a dirty world behind for my children, that would be irresponsible.

I'll help the debate further:

Someone might be tempted to say:But our air is getting cleaner than it used to be.

Yes, thanks to the Clean Air Act, our air quality problems are abating. BUT our air is not getting cleaner. It is getting dirtier at a slower rate. And dirty is not responsible.

Back to the picnic example: If I left behind a sack of garbage on the ground and someone said I was polluting and I responded by saying, But I used to leave FOUR sacks of the garbage on the ground...it is STILL irresponsible to leave the garbage.

Or at least that is how it seems to me. Would someone like to make a logical compaint about any of my points? I could be wrong, you know.

Curiously enough, America isn't even the top per capita emitter of some greenhouse gases -- Australia and Canada are ahead of us in line for that distinction in the carbon dioxide category.

Nature occasionally dumps far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of human industry could hope to equal in years. Volcanoes emit water vapor, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Kilauea, the volcano on the main island of Hawaii, emits 700,000 tons of carbon dioxide and an average of 500,000 tons of sulfur dioxide every year. That's about the same amount of carbon dioxide as 132,000 SUVs in the same time period... and that's just one active volcano

The Earth is a self-correcting, self-regulating system. It's funny how the same people that tell us the Earth is "alive" don't understand that fact.

A good start to protecting the evironment would be to scrap the Kyoto agreement that give a pass or "credits" to the nations with runaway industrialization, such as India and China.

Just switching from SUV's to fuel cell cars is not the answer, and reveals a lack of basic understanding of the oil industry.

The US oil demand is not exclusively used on fueling automobiles, even the Hybrids. Oil and it's by products are used in every aspect of our lives, from heating our heating our homes, cooking our food, greasing our bicycle chain, and even our clothing.

To some reducing the dependence on oil means to move into the nearest cave, develop a taste for steak tartar, update the wardrobe to include grass skirts and the finest buckskin.

Do you any CONCEPTION of the massive amount of power needed to maintain an industrialized nation? Do you have any idea of how little power is generated from alternate power sources?

If you are suggesting that we build more nuclear power plants, I'm all for that!

------------------------------Yes, thanks to the Clean Air Act, our air quality problems are abating. BUT our air is not getting cleaner. It is getting dirtier at a slower rate. And dirty is not responsible.

A conflict of rights? You are free to live as you like. This government has no power to force you to live in a way they choose, thank you very, very much Mr. Jefferson.

Why do liberals want so desperately to take away our right to chose?

Again, name a single power source that does not pollute.

Hint: The correct answer is Nuclear Power--------------------------------That we currently have a conflict of rights between those who'd like to drive/pollute as much as they want and those who'd like our air and water to be as clean as possible.

I repeat, there is no conflict in this nation, as you may live as you choose.

However, with your suggested policy changes I hope you have started planting your own vegetable garden for when food prices go through the roof due to high transportation charges. Also, I hope you can handle the effects of 25% unemployment.

By "encouraging people to drive less", liberals mean "punish people for moving about freely"

Let the free market decide the price of an automobile and gasoline. Aren't liberal's constantly demanding the right of choice? Well, that applies to the environment and birth control.

What about school vouchers?What about the right to bear arms?What about the right worship freely and in public buildings?

-------------------------------

3. I'd suggest changing the policy so that A. we no longer subsidize the auto industry and motorists (end auto welfare). This will result inB. higher gas and car prices, which will result inC. fewer people choosing to drive, more people reducing their circle of travel, more people finding alternative transportation

As this has turned into a discussion on the environment which I guess is linked to Katrina - I thought I would add a comment.

As I understand it - our climate is changing and this is partially due to the amount of pollution that has been going into the air for the last 200 years or so.

However slamming on the brakes is simply not realistic. Apparently some environmental groups believe we have to cut back 80% of what we burn up in energy. And that will never happen.

At the moment we in the western world use up an incredible amount and we should look at ways of gradually cutting back without significantly damaging our lifestyle or econmomy.

We do not live in a pure free market. All markets are regulated by laws within countries which by definition do not make them truly free. Otherwise why are there import tariffs, industrial subsidies and various taxes and charges on things we do and buy?

I drive a car and I love to drive my car. It's more convenient than riding a push-bike or going by train in the UK. However I don't mind paying extra for this within reasonable limits. I don't want to be taxed off the road but neither do I think making driving a car as cheap as possible is going to help.

I don't think it should be a question of stopping people but having us think whether we need to make that journey or is there a better way to get there.

I also love traveling to countries often by plane. And I cannot see myself willing stop doing that. Yet a lot of the food in my supermarket is flown out, to be repackaged using cheaper labour, then flown back to the UK. Yet the same food can be bought locally by the supermarket. So I think there should an environment cost added to flown goods on a sliding scale depending on how necessary it is. This wouldn't stop free trade if it was applied globally, if the cost was reasonable plus it would help local produce.

Also I believe it helps to stagger taxes/costs so buying lower polluting cars is cheaper to buy and run than those which aren't. Seriously - do people in towns need to use SUV to go shopping? I'm not saying SUV can or should be banned but there is an additional cost.

Again, as I understand it, in the past a lot of roads built were heavily subsidized whilst trainlines/trams often weren't. So it's never been a level-playing field.

There are simple things governments and individuals can do. We should encourage recycling and also introduce a small cost for plastic shopping bags. Shops need to reduce unnecessary packaging. I don't think this stops our freedom but slightly changes the already established rules.

This also mean countries need to work together. It is a shame the US didn't sign Kyoto. It would have been a small but significant step that many countries agree to globally reduce their emissions. We also need to get India and China on board. I saw somwhere that China is building 500 coal mines.

All I'm saying is that we don't have to do a massive U-turn but countries can start gradually to put in place things which helps the environment. It maybe too little or too late but I don't think we can pretend that with the evidence the majority of scientists are using, that the global warming is happening which will trigger more unstable weather and cause the sea level to rise. How can we ignore that?

We can reduce the amount of energy we use and start to use more renewable energy (wind, solar, tidal) alongside coal, oil, gas and nuclear. And I believe, if done gradually and properly this wouldn't significantly step on people's freedom or wreck the economy.

It amazes me that there are still idiots yapping about Kyoto as though it was the Holy Grail. Anyone who thinks it would have had any positive effect on the environment never read it, and doesn't know anything about the environment. First off, it would only have cut emissions of various greenhouse gasses from industrialised nations by a miniscule amount, at a massive industrial cost. Maybe you Liberals like the idea of crippling Western civilisation for a token gesture, but I don't. It would have had NO effect on countries like China. Any perceived positive effects of Kyoto could easily be offset by a single erupting volcano, or a few more coal-burning power plants in China... neither of which would have been stopped by Kyoto. Or how about the peat-burning in Indonesia, which accounts for up to a seventh of the world's fossil fuel emissions every year? The whole point of Kyoto was "screw America," and that's exactly what its proponents want to do.

Few, if anyone, believes that Kyoto is the Holy Grail. I believe that it is a small step in the right direction and is one thing amongst many things that would help. So stop exaggerating.

Kyoto agreement sets targets for countries to reduce their worldwide emissions of six greenhouse gases below, 5.2% (on average) their 1990 level. This agreement include over 60% of countries who add to the total carbon dioxide emissions. So I would say that is significant and not miniscule.

The US, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter has chosen not to join in. If other countries around the world can work together to reduce their emissions without wrecking their economies then why can't the richest country and the biggest polluter join in - as it helps all of us.

As for China and Indonesia - this is another excuse. I suppose we can sit on our hands and doing nothing until the perfect deal comes along but that never happens. The developed countries who are the biggest polluters have to take the lead here. In fact other countries - especially developing ones won't join Kyoto because the US and Australia didn't join up - and so you have a circular pattern of excuse and responsibility dodging.

Finger pointing at 1/7th towards Indonesia - doesn't mean that this issue shouldn't be tackled nor should it be a distraction of the 6/7th elsewhere. And because Kyoto, according to you, can be offset by volcanoes and Chinese coal-mines this means we should do nothing - so we can have double the emissions from what we could have reduced. Nice logic.

So CavalierX (apprioprate nick) - do you believe man-made emissions is significantly adding to global warming and will cause significant problems over the next century. And what do you suggest?

Absolutely impossible without destroying the industrial base of any country that tried it. Even those countries who've been fool enough to sign onto Kyoto haven't managed even a tiny percentage of that reduction. Unless, of course, you're proposing that we go entirely nuclear for power generation. That might make a miniscule dent.

>The US, the world’s largest >greenhouse gas polluter has >chosen not to join in.

And I salute Congress for overwhelmingly declining to destroy this country's economy.

>As for China and Indonesia - this >is another excuse.

Good question, Why do you excuse them?

>developing ones won't join Kyoto >because the US and Australia >didn't join up

Oh, it's all our fault. Saw that coming a mile away.

>Finger pointing at 1/7th towards >Indonesia

You don't think they should stop causing a seventh of the pollution you're crying about? Your obvious bias is what makes your comments so laughable.

>And because Kyoto, according to >you, can be offset by volcanoes >and Chinese coal-mines this means >we should do nothing

I think it's wonderful that you want us to wreck our economy for absolutely no gain whatsoever. Really, I'm serious! Okay, I'm being sarcastic.

No. I have seen no proof of it. In fact, I've seen a lot more evidence that the sun drives global warming a lot more than man-made anything. And even if we did somehow contribute to global warming, all we could possibly do -- if we tried really, really hard -- is to speed up the Earth's natural warming/cooling cycle by a few years. I think it's hysterical that the people crying about global warming forget that the Earth warms and cools naturally in a self-regulating cycle. Oh, but that can't be used to attack big bad America, can it?

>And what do you suggest?

I suggest you stop contributing to the problem yourself. Stop using the computer and the internet, which takes a lot of energy to maintain. Stop using electricity altogether. Stop wearing machine-tailored clothes, buying groceries transported by plane, truck or ship, and stop heating your house. Stop using plastics. Stop using artificial fibers. Stop using machines altogether. Then -- maybe -- I can take you seriously. If I bothered to find your cave, that is.

One of these days I am going to have to weigh in more on environmental issues. I've seen so much leftist disinformation.

You know the "Chickenhawk" fallacy that lefties use to discourage folks who have not served in the military from commenting on national security issues? Well perhaps I might just turn the tables on a few of them and apply the same logic to environmental issues. If they haven't worked for the EPA they should shut up!

Interesting that Tony Blair is now reported to believe that Kyoto is dead. Not sure how that contrasts with his statements at the G-8 in Scotland. But I've had my hands full dealing with moonbats lately.

Thanks CavalierX - I had no idea you were a Philly blogger but now that I know it - I will be visiting you often. Your input it is greatly appreciated.

All I can say - FINALLY as in: THIS IS IT - to Dan is that you need to move to another country where you can drum up a majority to go along with you. As it stands you are in America (uses lots of petroleum product but produces more than most any other country, too) and I do not want to live my life the same as you. Thanks to all commenters who have made some lively conversation.

Wow - Hey Mike - Cavalier must be right if he's a Virgo. Why listen to scientific debate when you have astrology? lol

Cavalier - you have seen no proof? Have you been looking or are you in denial?

Do you dispute Global warming is happening or do you think it is happening but man has not significantly contributed to it?

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

'There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders'

So I suppose the membership of more than 11 000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts are just moonbats in a conspiracy to wreck the US economy.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) said in its Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995 that the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate" and strengthened this in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001 to There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US) and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [2], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

So it looks like the national science academies of the G8 nations are moonbats too - obviously trying to wreck their own economies.

That's right these scientists were so hysterical that they forgot to factor in that the Earth warms and cools naturally in a self-regulating cycle. lol. Even Bush now accepts with the majority of the scientific community that global warming is happening and greenhouse emission have significantly contributed to it. I supposed he's a moonbat now too is he?

As for economy - nothing going to wreck it more than rising sea levels. Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warn in a joint study (summary) that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost 150 billion US dollars each year in the next decade. These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, tax payers, and industry alike.

Still I would rather trust the majority of scientists around the world than politicians and oil-companies political lobby groups who are deep denial there is a strong likehood of global warming.

I guess you won't believe it when happens because you are ignoring all the evidence and signs now. Best not to anything - now that is a Cavalier attitude.

I have seen some evidence, but no proof. Do you understand the difference?

>Do you dispute Global warming is >happening or do you think it is >happening but man has not >significantly contributed to it?

Of course it's happening. It always happens, followed by global cooling. It's been going on for billions of years. I dispute the Chicken Little doomsday "runaway killer unstoppable global meltdown" crap I keep hearing from the Left.

>the mean annual temperature at >the Earth's surface, averaged >over the entire globe, has been >increasing in the past 200 years.

There is also clear evidence that the same thing happened just before and just after the year 700, when the global mean temperature rose sharply, suddenly fell, and then rose again. Those wacky Vikings! What kind of SUVs did they drive?

>the abundance of greenhouse gases >in the atmosphere has increased >over the same period.

So you agree that the Indonesians should stop burning peat, then?

>global mean temperature is >projected to increase by 1.4°C->5.8°C in the next 100 years

>the balance of evidence suggests >that there is a discernible human >influence on global climate"

We might kick the cycle over to "cool" a few years early this time, but only if we try really, really hard.

After this, your already-overlong rant descends into a childish tantrum, better left unanswered except by laughter. Stop hogging other people's space and get your own blog -- this section is for comments, not moonbat dissertations.

Okay at least you admit there is evidence - at least that is a start. You are the one insisting on proof whilst I have said all along that this is the assertion from the majority of scientist that this a likelihood. Can you prove this is a conspiracy to wreck the US economy? Can you proof that global warming definately isn't happening added and significantly abetted by man's greenhouse emissions?

Do I agree with Indonesians burning peat at a rate which is adding to greenhouse gases. Sure - and what is exactly your point?

Still I see you avoided my question on whether you believe the American Meteorological Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the national science academies of the G8 nations + Brazil, China and India are moonbats too?

Can't you get your head round the fact the earth warms up and cools naturally AND the carbon emissions from mankind over the last 200 years have and will most likely add significantly to global warming? The two are not incompatible you know. So your vikings in SUV is just a distraction which proves nothing. That's just bad logic if you think the earth warms up and cools naturally therefore global warming cannot be acebated by greehouse emissions from mankind.

Not exactly why these issues I have raised makes it a rant. I guess you don't want to hear it. From your long replies - I guess you are just a hypocrite. I have my own blog - which if you point your mouse over GaffaUK in the blue writing it will take you there.

Seems like you have already descended into a childish tantrum because you are losing the debate which is shown by you resorting to using silly names like 'moonbat' and threatening not to reply as if I really care.

The Kyoto Protocol was set up to to place a heavy burden on the U.S. and virtually none on Europe.

By setting a target of 7% below the 1990 level for CO2 emissions, the UN put the U.S. at a severe economic disadvantage. Using 1990 as a base year, Great Britain reaps enormous reduction credits because it switched from heavy use of high-sulfur coal to burning clean North Sea natural gas after that date.

Germany gets similar credits for taking over the heavily polluting East German factories and closing them after that date.

The European Union, which has demanded to be treated as a single entity, rather than separate countries, benefits from these actions and, therefore, will need to do very little to meet the treaty standards.

Russia pushed for the Kyoto Protocol because it believes it will make billions of dollars from the U.S.

While Russia is one of the world's heaviest polluters, their emissions fell by some 30 percent over the last 10 years due to the collapse of their economy... it's that 1990 base year, again.

This means Russia would have emissions "credits" they could sell to U.S. businesses which would be unable to meet Kyoto standards.

The absolute worst polluters on this planet will be given "credit" to maintain their status quo on CO2 emmissions. Kyoto's "credit" framework puts an emphasis on these countries to NOT clean up their CO2 mess. The Kyoto Accord is environmental welfare contract.

------------------------------Okay at least you admit there is evidence - at least that is a start. You are the one insisting on proof whilst I have said all along that this is the assertion from the majority of scientist that this a likelihood. Can you prove this is a conspiracy to wreck the US economy?

Europe Union's reduction is set at a higher rate of reduction than than at the US - 8% compared to 7%. Unfortunately the US has 4% of the world population but puts up over 25% of the greenhouse emissions. The EU is not far behind.

I wouldn't say there is virtually no burden on Europe - otherwise why is the EU struggling to meet it's targets and introducing heavy fines to member countries failing to meet it's targets?

As for UK switching from mainly coal to gas and Germany closing down dirty and inefficient factories - I'm sure these options as well as buying credit elsewhere is open to US.

Although it has taken 7 years to get Kyoto fully signed (due to political wrangling)- it has 154 countries on board which is an amazing achievement. Is Kyoto flawed? Of course - but it is a step in the right direction.

To use a metaphor - it is like saying the Declaration of Independence is flawed and was not worth signing because it did not say that slaves were free - something that was debated and omitted at the time. But it was a start - freedom of slaves came later.

And thus the US along with the EU and other developed countries have a moral duty to lead the way. If the US was on board then this would help to pave the way for getting countries like China on board.

The apocalyptic predictions on which gaffauk justify these drastic steps are totally unsubstantiated and ignore some fundamental truths about the Earth's climatic behavior.

To put the current warming trend in perspective, it is vital to understand earth's geological history and patterns.

Over the last 700,000 years, the climate has operated on a relatively predictable schedule of 100,000-year glaciation cycles.

We are currently in a warm interglacial named Holocene. So far in this interglacial period, there is geologic evidence of seven major warming and cooling trends. NOTE: the temperature variation in many of these periods averaged between 1.8 degree F - 3 degree F MORE than the average temperature increase of the last 150 years.

The 1.5 degree F increase in global temperature so often cited as evidence of "man-made" global warming most like represents the return to a normal temp after The Little Ice Age.

Even the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , the chief proponent of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty concludes that: "The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus, some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities."

Global warminig is a result of natural changes in the Earth's climate that promises to yeld humanity positive benefits for the next several hundred years.

CO2 stimulates plant growth and lessens the need for water, this in turn, will produce more bountiful harvests over the next couple centuries. With a current human population exceeding 6 billion and rising, this is excellent news especially for developing nations struggling to feed their populations.

Global warming is indeed happening, I have millions of years of geologic evidence to back up my statement. This evidence refutes any claim that mankind is directly reponsible for the current global warming trend. Human beings are not significant contributors or detractors to the global environment, to believe so is the epitome of arrogance.

Yet a poll recently commissioned by International Policy Network shows that 57% of Britons believe that the UK should not implement Kyoto if it causes economic harm and job losses - an inevitable consequence of its restrictions on emissions.

------------------------------I wouldn't say there is virtually no burden on Europe - otherwise why is the EU struggling to meet it's targets and introducing heavy fines to member countries failing to meet it's targets?

Why do you need the US to get China onboard with Kyoto? Are the participants of this junk science movement unable to convince China on their own?

"C'mon.."everyone" is doing it..why not you?"

This sounds like a schoolyard peer pressure tactics.

So much for moral relevance!

---------------------------------And thus the US along with the EU and other developed countries have a moral duty to lead the way. If the US was on board then this would help to pave the way for getting countries like China on board

'Can't you get your head round the fact the earth warms up and cools naturally AND the carbon emissions from mankind over the last 200 years have and will most likely add significantly to global warming? The two are not incompatible you know'

Hmmm - who would I rather trust the the American Meteorological Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the national science academies of the G8 nations + Brazil, China and India OR Skye's geology lesson?

Oh btw - nice quote there from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You forgot to mention that was in 1990. Only 15 years ago! lol

They have since moved much further, as the scientific evidence has come in to say, and I repeat, Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001 to There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

Lacking empirical evidence of human-induced global warming in temperature records, liberals point to computer models to predict how the atmosphere would respond to increases in industrial emmissions.

These computer models uniformily predict the increased CO2 emissions will increase the global temperature dramatically. However, the earth's atmosphere refuses to cooperate with the computer generated models. Global satellite measurements have detected a slight cooling of global temperatures over the last two decades.

The American Meterological Society has published studies that suggest the computer models may be misrepresenting the effect of water-vapor feedback within the climate sytsem.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is funded by the UN. The same UN who dreamt up this piece of science fiction otherwise known as the Kyoto Agreement. I strongly doubt the IPCC would contradict the hand that feeds them.

G8 nations + Brasil, China and India..strong supporters of Kyoto. Who wouldn't be, when given the opportunity to make billions on the sale of Kyoto Credits.

It's all about the green..money trumps the environment everytime.

-------------------------------Hmmm - who would I rather trust the the American Meteorological Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the national science academies of the G8 nations + Brazil, China and India

Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What human beings are doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the C02 equivalent in the atmosphere has increased by 50 percent, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas. Also, since 1881, global average temperatures have increased by almost one degree Fahrenheit.

This is the strawman grasped by liberals to "prove" that global warming is upon us and human beings are the cause.

However, MOST of the temperature rise preceded the increase in emissions. Two-thirds of the temperature increase occurred in the first half of the century, as the world emerged from the so-called "little ice age. " Most of the industrial emissions of greenhouse gases occurred after World War II. For this reason, most climate scientists believe that the temperature changes over the last 100 years are due to natural climate fluctuations.

One rational and sane reason for the recent climate changes is a simple as the Sun. Solar output combined with fluctuations in the Earth's orbit might be responsible for changes in global temperature.

Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics reports that there is a remarkable correlation between solar cycles and surface temperatures over the past 240 years.

I Repeat : Satellites have been tracking the Earth's temperature since 1979 and their data points to a slight global cooling over the past two decades, this data was confirmed with weather ballon measurement.

So what is this nonsense about global "warming".

---------------------------------'Can't you get your head round the fact the earth warms up and cools naturally AND the carbon emissions from mankind over the last 200 years have and will most likely add significantly to global warming? The two are not incompatible you know'

>And how long ago were these >studies which made this >suggestion Skye?

I'm kind of amused by this Liberal talking point: "Scientific consensus based on the best available evidence was completely wrong a few years ago, but it's all perfectly correct now." I've heard better "trust me" come-ons from used car salesmen. Looks like this particular specimen has fallen to repeating his talking points after they were refuted. Sorry, kid. The "evidence" you have for runaway unstoppable killer global warming is nothing more than the system rebalancing after the Little Ice Age, which ended just about the time the measurements upon which you base your premise began. And at the risk of repeating myself: the most we could do, if we tried our hardest, is to bring on the next downturn in the Earth's 1200-year warming/cooling cycle by a couple of years or so. You can get hysterical about that if you want to. But hysteria doesn't count for much with me.

This is from 2 years ago and Skye let me know when you find your study from the AMS and what year that was. Was it in the last century by any chance?

btw Cavalier - I didn't mention 'Scientific consensus based on the best available evidence was completely wrong a few years ago, but it's all perfectly correct now'. Science is alway continually updating and revising it's knowledge and theories every year when they discover more evidence etc.

OK, Guffa, I checked it out. The very first sentence is, "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years." This is correct! It's precisely what I've been telling you -- we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age. But the page never mentions that... then, out of nowhere, the author suddenly makes an assumption and treats it as a fact. "Because human activities are contributing to climate change..." a sentence suddenly begins.

Whoa! No proof of this statement is offered, nor are any details concerning how much, if any, we are contributing to the warming trend, nor does your page mention that the Earth warms and cools in a natural cycle...although it does blame "global cooling" on human use of aerosols. Hey, maybe we ought to bring back aerosol products -- that would certainly be doing our duty to offset our contribution to global warming!

In other words, that page is worth exactly nil as "proof" of anything. It draws conclusions without backing them up with facts and research. It's an op-ed, not a scientific paper.

Cavalier - I did not say that was a scientific paper. It is a statement from the American Meterological Society. Again this is society that represents 11 000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts.

SKye: "G8 nations + Brasil, China and India..strong supporters of Kyoto. Who wouldn't be, when given the opportunity to make billions on the sale of Kyoto Credits."

The US is part of the G8 who is not a supporter of Kyoto. So that doesn't follow.

Monicar "CavalierX and Skye have done an admirable job but I just don't think it matters to GaffaUK"

Hmmm - well I have put forward the case, that the majority scientists believe there is a good likelihood global warming is happening and man-made emissions have significantly contributed to this. I didn't say it was definite - but likely. However Cavalier and Skye are adamant this is not the case. How can they be so sure this is nonsense? If they are not convinced by the evidence and predicted temperatures then fine - but doesn't make it nonsense. They dismiss it which makes them closed minded in this debate.

Even George Bush' adminstration agreed to this statement released this year at the G8 summit.

'Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth's surface. While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

Global energy demands are expected to grow by 60% over the next 25 years. This has the potential to cause a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change'

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

'Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said'

CavalierX - yep I see that petition was signed in 1998. There's been 7 years more data and scientific evalution since then. Even Bush changed his mind - how do you explain that?

Here's something more reason for you...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/article11830.ece

Mike - we could start to change our ways gradually rather than slamming on a breaks but then again we do nothing. A metaphor for you...It is likely that hurricane rita we hit the Texas coast but that is not definite. I guess if you were in Galveston - you would just sit tight and do nothing.

As for scientists all being lefties...nice. Discredit them. I would expect they have a range of political views.

>There's been 7 years more data >and scientific evalution since >then.

Including sun-caused global warming on Mars, a fact that I note you ignore. How do you Liberals plan to shut off the SUN, hmm?

>Even Bush changed his mind - how >do you explain that?

Sometimes you idiot Leftists tell us he's a moron, sometimes you tell us he's an eeevil super-genius, like a Bond villain or a Sith lord. He's a politician, not a scientist. Are you basing your junk science on what politicians say now, since actual science has all but abandoned you?

>we could start to change our ways >gradually

Why? For what reason? To what end? How are you planning to stop the planet's natural warming/cooling cycle -- and how badly would that ruin the environment if you could, hey? How are you going to stop the sun from warming the Earth?

lol - so because the ice-caps are melting on mars that must mean that man-made emissions do not contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. pretty poor logic there Cavalier.

I haven't ignored scientists - that's why I sent you a link to a news report about scientist work on the oceans. Something you ignored maybe?

Again you confuse logic. I wasn't saying that I believed there was a likelihood that man-made emissions was adding to global warming because George Bush believed it was - did I? So again do you think George is also a moonbat? Try not to dodge the question this time;)

>so because the ice-caps are >melting on mars that must mean >that man-made emissions do not >contribute to the greenhouse >effect and global warming

If we're at the point where you have to lie about what I said -- in a thread where anyone can simply scroll up to see the truth -- then I think you've about run your course. If we contribute at all, it's miniscule compared to what nature contrbutes to the natural warming/cooling cycle. If we affect it at all, maybe -- if we try really hard -- we can kick it over to "cool" a few years early this time.

Amazing when folks like Gaffa start making arguments based on logic... Like everything else in that reality challenged world, their "logic" is flawless.

And the sky is green too.

"As for scientists all being lefties...nice. Discredit them. I would expect they have a range of political views."

Well I'm not sure how many environmental studies you have have been involved with Gaffa, but I can say from experience that a great deal of the science in this field is done by people with a political agenda.

You want to provide us a list of scientists you feel are credible on this matter? If that's too taxing for you, just cut and paste a few sponsor names from a Michael Moore web site. That would amount to the same thing.

As for your contention that we should be moving gradually to address these issues of concern, I contend that we already do. Even with a lack of credible environmental science we're spending billions of dollars and restructuring the economy to address a need that may not exist.

Imagine all the good things we could be doing to ameliorate poverty, suffering and disease around the world if we were to use that money we're currently tossing to the wind to meet more immediate needs.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Gaia hypothesis.

That study of UK soils releasing carbon to maintain the balance in the atmosphere as manmade carbon emissions are reduced (by exactly the same amount) should be enough information even for you to understand that man's role here is minimal.

Mike: 'Even with a lack of credible environmental science we're spending billions of dollars and restructuring the economy to address a need that may not exist.Imagine all the good things we could be doing to ameliorate poverty, suffering and disease around the world if we were to use that money we're currently tossing to the wind to meet more immediate needs'

I can imagine saving 200 billion dollars and over 2000 US soldiers lives to help poverty, suffering within the US itself

Mike 'Well I'm not sure how many environmental studies you have have been involved with Gaffa, but I can say from experience that a great deal of the science in this field is done by people with a political agenda'

Mike - you raised the issue - you do the exhaustive research and let us know when you have the results. Of course there are also scientists and organisations who look into environment issues which are paid by or given contributions by oil companies but I would imagine you wouldn't consider this would effect their opinions or results would you?

>I can imagine saving 200 billion >dollars and over 2000 US soldiers >lives

If there's one thing I truly dislike, it's when slimy Liberals use the deaths of America's finest citizens -- whose boots they aren't fit to shine -- to make some sort of political attack on their commander-in-chief.

I think the US and UK soldiers out there have got guts and our very courageous. I dislike slimy warmongers who send our soldiers out to risk their lives over shaky and unreliable evidence (WMDs and 9/11 connection) and santimonious claptrap (as if US and UK have a fine track- record about caring for the citizens of Iraq.)

I don't suppose you will be licking their boots Cavalier as you are probably as far as you can get from a recruiting station.

So you believe that the United Nations lied to us? And all those dead people at Halabja were actors playing parts?

>and 9/11 connection

Still waiting for you to stop lying about that. 1) The War on Terror is not and never has been all about al-Qaeda. 2) A connection to 9/11 was not among the reasons listed for removing Saddam from power and 3) you keep ignoring the myriad links between Saddam and global terror groups, including but not limited to al-Qaeda. Who are you covering for, I'd like to know.

WMDs - so after the invasion - where did the US and UK find actual WMDs? Sure Saddam was after them but the intelligence was unreliable. Halabja was in 1988 - check out the West's response...

http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

According Le-Monde, in August 1988 the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars

Why would I lie about the 9/11 connection? The 9/11 commission found no credible connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in regards to 9/11. Maybe you should send them your evidence?

I'm sure there are tenuous connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda as there is between Saudi-Arabia and other countries. However it seems likely that Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda did not get along at all well.

The connection to 9/11 was listed as reason. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdfThis is a linked you posted Cavalier - you are contradicting yourself now. lol

+ I have never said that Saddam was not linked to any terrorist groups. I have said that the links with Saddam and Al-Qaeda in regards to 9/11 are few and far between. Distort that if you will.

Who am I covering for...yep that's right, obviously in your paranoid mind you are trying to imply I'm some sort of terrorist. lol

Yes our Gaffe is still at it. Did you know that Gaffa is slang for 'boss' or 'guvnor' in the UK? What a joke that guy is. I think he's run out of steam, though. I know I've become quite sick of trying to reason with him.

What's my job or nickname got to do with anything? Nothing. That's right Mike - seems like you are 'tossing reams of conflicting and confusing' irrelevant jibes which add up to nothing but petty distractions...